Search for: "Good v. State of California"
Results 5461 - 5480
of 7,499
Sorted by Relevance
|
Sort by Date
16 Nov 2021, 12:00 am
California EFF’s Case Page on Riley v. [read post]
23 Jun 2010, 8:30 am
Prior to Johns Hopkins, Harley consulted for the Nuffield Trust on health and security issues, was a program associate with the California Endowment, and worked as an interviewer and analyst on the Baltimore City needle exchange vans. [read post]
1 Apr 2008, 7:16 pm
The letter read in part: "Because you were a witness in the case of the People v. [read post]
1 Jul 2015, 5:50 am
At Techdirt, Tim Cushing explains decision in United States v. $167,070 in United States Currency: It begins with the flimsiest of “reasonable suspicion” and heads downhill after that. [read post]
11 May 2023, 6:07 am
Then a coalition of states and environmental groups challenged the denial, and the result was the landmark decision Massachusetts v. [read post]
3 Jan 2021, 9:50 pm
More States Pass Employment Related Laws- Especially Variations of the Independent Contractor Law that California Adopted (the ABC Test) This one did not come to be. [read post]
8 Feb 2015, 2:30 pm
In one instance, Greenland revisits one of his own cases, without any clear acknowledgment that his views were largely rejected.[6] The State of California had declared, pursuant to Proposition 65 ( the Safe Drinking Water and Toxic Enforcement Act of 1986, Health and Safety Code sections 25249.5, et seq.), that the State “knew” that di(2-ethylhexyl)phthalate, or “DEHP” caused cancer. [read post]
8 Feb 2015, 2:38 pm
In one instance, Greenland revisits one of his own cases, without any clear acknowledgment that his views were largely rejected.[6] The State of California had declared, pursuant to Proposition 65 ( the Safe Drinking Water and Toxic Enforcement Act of 1986, Health and Safety Code sections 25249.5, et seq.), that the State “knew” that di(2-ethylhexyl)phthalate, or “DEHP” caused cancer. [read post]
14 Mar 2023, 11:20 am
Summary of the Facts of the Case of Luis Garcia v. [read post]
23 Jul 2010, 1:40 pm
The United States District Court for the Northern District of California granted the motion, finding there was no material difference between Cutera’s January 31 disclosures, and that Cutera’s earnings projections were protected by the Reform Act’s safe harbor provision for forward-looking statements. [read post]
23 Aug 2023, 7:38 pm
” Judge Legg reported last week on Dinnena v. [read post]
16 Oct 2015, 7:08 am
United States, 14-10443, and Lopez v. [read post]
16 Jan 2021, 10:57 pm
This includes courts in California, Delaware, Illinois, New York, and Washington.[26] To determine which category a letter of intent falls under, courts examine the intentions of the parties.[27] In fact, the primary factor of all letter of intent analysis is the intentions of the parties.[28] Intent is the “touchstone” upon which letter of intent litigation hinges.[29] C. [read post]
4 Dec 2021, 11:03 am
COVID-19 Laws and Related Guidance – good starting place resources for California nonprofits: COVID-19 Emergency Temporary Standards Frequently Asked Questions; COVID-19 Testing and Vaccine FAQs; DFEH Employment Information on COVID-19. [read post]
11 Sep 2016, 9:01 pm
United States v. [read post]
8 Aug 2018, 1:51 pm
California Teachers Association and Janus v. [read post]
17 Nov 2019, 6:55 am
Jones v. [read post]
6 Jan 2025, 11:00 am
Laura Coordes, Harrington v. [read post]
14 Jul 2009, 7:34 pm
By Contrast, California courts have held that Bloggers ARE journalists: http://www.mediabloggers.org/california-courts-rule-bloggers-are-journalists Apple Barred From Obtaining Source Of Blog's Article - O'Grady v. [read post]
